McKellar v J Basile & D Lavalle trading as Fortuna Fisheries

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	McKellar v J Basile & D Lavalle trading as Fortuna Fisheries [2024] NSWPICMP 107
APPELLANT:	Craig McKellar
RESPONDENT:	J Basile & D Lavelle trading as Fortuna Fisheries
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Marshal Douglas
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Robin Fitzsimons
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Mark Burns
DATE OF DECISION:	28 February 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Whether Medical Assessor (MA) provided adequate reasons for various findings he made and for assessment; whether MA overlooked evidence; Appeal Panel found that MA explained his reasons for his assessment and the assessment was correct and made by reference to correct criteria; MA did not overlook evidence; Held – Medical Assessment Certificate upheld.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 8 November 2023 Craig McKellar, the appellant, lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Dr Ross Mellick, a Medical Assessor, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on
11 October 2023.
The appellant relies on the following ground of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act):
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The delegate is satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal has been made out. The Appeal Panel has conducted a review of the original medical assessment but limited to the ground(s) of appeal on which the appeal is made.
Rule 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (PIC Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 - Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes set out the practice and procedure in relation to the medical appeal process under s 328 of the 1998 Act. An Appeal Panel determines its own procedures in accordance with r 128(1) of the PIC Rules.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed
1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant was employed by J Basile & D Lavell trading as Fortuna Fisheries, the respondent, as a deck hand. In the period between 11 September 2016 and
14 September 2016 he was required to work for the respondent on the vessel named Tunamoon. On 14 September 2016 whilst he was unloading the catch from that vessel he was assaulted by one of the respondents and two other members of the crew. During the assault he was kicked in the occipital region of his head. He suffered significant injuries although he was not rendered unconscious. He attended the Milton Hospital Emergency Department but was not admitted.
The appellant made a claim for compensation for permanent impairment from the injuries he has suffered as a consequence of the assault. He claimed the degree of his permanent impairment from his injuries was of the order of 38% whole person impairment (WPI). He relied upon reports of consultant neurologist Dr Dudley O’Sullivan and orthopaedic surgeon Dr James Bodel to support his claim.
The insurer of the respondent did not accept his claim and that precipitated the appellant initiating proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) seeking determination of his claim.
The matter was referred to Commission Member Mr Philip Young who held an arbitration with the parties to determine whether the appellant suffered an injury to his right shoulder in the assault on the 14 September 2016 or alternatively whether the appellant suffered a condition in his shoulder as a consequence of other injuries he suffered in the assault.
On 26 May 2023 Member Young entered an award in favour of the respondent in respect to appellant’s allegation that he had injured or suffered a consequential condition to his right upper extremity. Member Young thereupon remitted the matter to the President of the Commission “for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the extent of the [appellants] whole person impairment, if any, which results from injury in consequential conditions to the [appellants] cervical spine, lumbar spine, left upper extremity (wrist), right upper extremity (wrist), right lower extremity (foot) and nervous system”.
A delegate of the President duly referred the matter to Medical Assessor Rob Kuru. Medical Assessor Kuru issued a Medical Assessor Certificate in response to that referral on
8 August 2023. In that Medical Assessor Kuru certified that the appellant had 16% WPI from his injuries, comprising 7% WPI relating to the cervical spine, 5% WPI relating to the lumbar spine, 4% WPI relating to the right lower extremity, and 0% WPI relating to the right upper extremity and left upper extremity. Medical Assessor Kuru did not assess the appellant’s nervous system. It would seem that this was because an assessment by Medical Assessor Kuru of the appellant’s permanent impairment relating to that body system was outside Medical Assessor Kuru’s field of expertise.
A delegate of the President of the Commission thereupon referred the matter to Medical Assessor Mellick, firstly, to assess the degree of the appellant’s permanent impairment resulting from injury or consequential condition to the appellant’s nervous system and secondly, to combine that assessment with the assessment of Medical Assessor Kuru, as certified in the Medical Assessment Certificate that Medical Assessor Kuru issued on 8 August 2023.
On 11 October 2023 Medical Assessor Mellick issued the MAC, in which he certified firstly, that he assessed the appellant had 0% WPI relating to his nervous system and secondly, after combining that with the assessment of Medical Assessor Kuru, he certified that the appellant had 16% WPI from his injury on 14 September 2016.
For clarity, the Appeal Panel notes that the appellant’s appeal relates only to the medical dispute Medical Assessor Mellick assessed, that is the degree of permanent impairment relating to his nervous system.

PRELIMINARY REVIEW

The Appeal Panel conducted a preliminary review of the original medical assessment in the absence of the parties and in accordance with the Procedural Direction PIC7.
As a result of that preliminary review, the Appeal Panel determined that it was not necessary for the appellant to undergo a further medical examination. This is because the Appeal Panel, for reasons explained below, found that the MAC did not contain a demonstrable error. Consequently, the Appeal Panel is unable nor needs to examine the appellant.

EVIDENCE

The Appeal Panel has before it all the documents that were sent to the Medical Assessor for the original medical assessment and has taken them into account in making this determination.

MEDICAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATE

Medical Assessor Mellick provided the following summary of the appellant’s injuries and the diagnoses that had been made:
“Mr McKellar was assaulted by three men on 14 September 2016. He was not rendered unconscious. He was assessed at hospital and no admission was found to be necessary. He subsequently developed symptoms of headache accompanied with a tumbling sensation inside his head, associated with nausea, clamminess, vomiting and fainting. These episodes were not associated with tonic, clonic motor activity and no evidence of an epileptic phenomenon was reported by his treating doctors. MRI scans of the head and electroencephalopathy (sic: electroencephalography) were found to be normal.
Diagnoses of vasovagal syncope, vestibular migraine and occipital neuralgia have been applied and treatment provided. There is also a significant mood disorder associated with anxiety and depression.”
Medical Assessor Mellick recorded his findings from his examination of the appellant in these terms:
“On examination, Mr McKellar gave a clear history and exhibited no abnormality of
cognition under the circumstances of the consultation.
Examination of the cranial nerves revealed no abnormality. The head impulse test was
normal.
Cervical movements were performed over a normal range symmetrically and not
associated with unsteadiness or vertigo.
There was no disorder of contour, posture, tone, power production, coordination or
sensation in the upper extremities. There was a fine terminal intention tremor on
finger/nose testing bilaterally, more on the left side. Finger dexterity was unimpaired.
There was no abnormality of the normal rhythm of gait. However, there was ataxia on
tandem walking.
There was no disorder of contour, posture, tone, power production, coordination or
sensation in the lower extremities. The deep tendon reflexes were symmetrical and
normally brisk apart from the ankle jerks, which were markedly depressed on
reinforcement. The plantar responses were flexor bilaterally.
Rombergism was absent.”
Medical Assessor Mellick provided the following reasons for assessing the appellant’s permanent impairment relating to his nervous system as 0% WPI:
“REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT
a. My opinion and assessment of whole person impairment
Mr McKellar was assaulted. The history he gives indicates that he remembers the events clearly and although certainly suffering a significant head injury, and more likely than not concussion, there is no objective support for a diagnosis of permanent brain injury having occurred at that time.
With reference to Chapter 5 of the SIRA Guides, Paragraph 5.9, the requirements for (sic: assessment of) a traumatic brain injury must involve one of the following three:
1) A verified abnormality of the Glasgow Coma Score;
2) Verified duration of post-traumatic amnesia
3) Significant intracranial pathology on CT or MRI scanning.
In this instance, as indicated above, Mr McKellar was not rendered unconscious by the assault. He was shocked and distressed however, his activities immediately after the assault were reasonable and rational. He was assessed at hospital and no comment was made regarding disorder of consciousness or amnesia. Certainly, his recollection of events is clear and no post-traumatic amnesia was identified by me or by others who have seen him since the injury. MRI scans of the brain have not identified a brain injury.
The clinical assessment does not establish that the parameters of AMA5, Table 13-5, Clinical Dementia Rating, allow an assessable impairment of CDR. There are significant secondary psychological issues referred to by myself and other specialists which are contributing to his current clinical condition.
My findings are recorded above and do not establish an assessable impairment arising because of a brain injury occasioned by the assault. Concussion commonly occurs without necessarily being associated with a brain injury.
I am therefore, respectfully, in disagreement with Dr O’Sullivan’s conclusions in his report of 13 January 2020 where he makes reference to Table 13-8 of AMA5, which is a table rating emotional and behavioural disorders associated with brain injury. The parameters described in the SIRA Guides, already referred to above, were not applied and I accordingly do not agree with his assessment of middle of the range Class 1 impairment for emotional and behavioural disorders. There is also clear history of psychologically based problems.
The diagnosis of vestibular migraine was applied and treatment specifically provided. My clinical assessment does not establish that condition to be present. The headache now present accords with the diagnosis of chronic tension headache, which, in turn, is consonant with the significant psychologically based symptoms suffered by Mr McKellar.
Treatment has been provided for occipital neuritis and that condition is no longer evident.
On page 7 of Dr O’Sullivan’s report dated 19 August 2019 he makes reference to a diagnosis of mild vestibular dysfunction and qualifies that diagnosis by indicating that vestibular function tests were normal. He drew attention to psychological factors contributing to Mr McKellar’s ongoing symptoms on page 3 where there is detailed description of a physical examination. However, there is no description establishing vestibular function to be impaired. The report does not make reference to a head impulse test or to any objective signs establishing a vestibular disorder or abnormality arising from an 8^th nerve dysfunction. Dr O’sullivan (sic), however, refers to impairment of balance. I agree and my findings on physical examination establish that Mr McKellar has mild ataxia on tandem walking resulting in a balance problem. I also find reduced ankle jerks when
compared with more proximal reflexes and a mild terminal tremor on finger/nose testing.
Dr O’Sullivan’s report dated 19 August 2019 documents mild intention tremor on finger/nose testing and a wide based ataxic gait. I also found mild intention tremor as well as a gait disorder. These are cerebellar signs not vestibular signs. Signs that I found on examination include reduced ankle jerks suggesting a mild sensory peripheral neuropathy.
This combination of signs suggests a metabolic disorder such as may be caused by alcohol consumption. These are not signs of a traumatic brain injury.
….
c. My brief comments regarding the other medical opinions and findings submitted by the parties and, where applicable, the reasons why my opinion differs
A report prepared by a neurosurgeon, Dr Day, on 13 January 2017 recorded that no neurological abnormalities were detected and a diagnosis of severe post-concussive syndrome was made. No reference was made by Dr Day to a brain injury.
Dr Shaun Watson, Neurologist, saw Mr McKellar in October 2018 and continued to see him for a number of years. Dr Watson made a diagnosis of vestibular migraine and also treated Mr McKellar for occipital neuralgia. Symptoms of a psychiatric nature were also referred to by Dr Watson and treatment for depression and anxiety provided. The doctor made no reference to evidence of a brain injury.
A report from Dr Clare Hollo, Occupational and Pain Management Therapist, who examined Mr McKellar on 5 March 2019 found no neurological abnormalities.”
A report prepared by Doctor O’Sullivan dated 19 August 2019 makes reference to his examination and reports he was unable to identify “any significant cognitive impairment”. He reports a minimental examination of 30/30 and provides a summary of a “post-concussive type syndrome…now persisting for at least almost 3 years”. Doctor O’Sullivan provided no specific evidence of a brain injury.
A second report prepared by Doctor O’Sullivan dated 13 January 2020 makes reference to a diagnosis of vasovagal episodes with severe vertigo, nausea, vomiting and fainting. I agree with that diagnosis.
Medical Assessor Mellick did not in the MAC make any reference to a report Dr O’Sullivan wrote on 21 September 2021 in which Dr O’Sullivan noted that the appellant had experienced episodes of lost consciousness. Dr O’Sullivan considered those episodes were due to the appellant’s vestibular migraine including vasovagal syncope. He considered these episodes were consequently related to the appellant’s work injury. Based on that,
Dr O’Sullivan considered that the appellant was entitled to an additional assessment relating to his permanent impairment from his injury in accordance with Table 13-3 of AMA5, which allowed for a rating for impairment due to episodic loss on consciousness or awareness.
Dr O’Sullivan had assessed the appellant had a class 1 impairment and added an additional 5% WPI to his prior assessment. The appellant relied on this report of Dr O’Sullivan, as well as earlier reports the doctor had written, to support his claim for compensation.

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties made written submissions. They are not repeated in full, but have been considered by the Appeal Panel.
In summary, the appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor had agreed with
Dr O’Sullivan’s diagnosis of vasovagal episode with severe vertigo, nausea, vomiting and fainting, but, notwithstanding that, the Medical Assessor did not explain how it was that the signs he exhibited were cerebellar signs and not vestibular signs. The appellant noted that
Dr O’Sullivan took a history that he drank minimal alcohol whereas the Medical Assessor obtained a history that he drank moderate amount of alcohol. The appellant submitted that the Medical Assessor attributed his cerebellar symptoms to his level of alcohol consumption but did not expose his reasoning for that conclusion.
The appellant observed that Medical Assessor Mellick did not refer to Dr O’Sullivan’s report of 21 September 2021 and submitted that either the Medical Assessor overlooked it, in which case the Medical Assessor did not give proper consideration to the evidence before him, or the Medical Assessor did not dispute what Dr O’Sullivan had said in that report.
In reply, the respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor concluded that the appellant did not fulfil the requirements of paragraph 5.9 of the Guidelines such that an assessment of the appellant’s permanent impairment could be based on a traumatic brain injury. The respondent noted that the appellant did not challenge that conclusion.
The respondent noted that the Medical Assessor noted that the appellant’s gait disorder and mild intention tremor were cerebellar signs and not vestibular signs. The respondent submitted that the appellant misunderstood that the Medical Assessor had diagnosed these as a metabolic disorder that may be caused by alcohol consumption. The respondent submitted the Medical Assessor only offered that as a possible explanation for what the Medical Assessor concluded were cerebellar signs.
The respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor completed the task required of him by the referral in that he assessed the impairment of the appellant’s nervous system arising from the incident of 14 September 2016, and did so after a careful examination of the appellant who did not present with vestibular signs but rather cerebellar signs unrelated to the injury.
With respect to the Medical Assessor not referring to the report of Dr O’Sullivan dated
21 September 2021, the respondent submitted that the Medical Assessor was not required to refer to all reports within the brief. The respondent submitted that the fact that the Medical Assessor did not mention the report provides no basis for concluding that he agreed with the opinion Dr O’Sullivan expressed within it. The respondent submitted that the better argument is that the Medical Assessor, if he had agreed with Dr O’Sullivan’s opinion, would have been included a rating under Table 13-3 of the MAC. The respondent noted that within the Table 2 to the MAC the Medical Assessor, when detailing the criteria within AMA5 that he applied to assess the appellant’s permanent impairment, listed Tables 13-2 to 13-8 of AMA5, and the respondent submitted that by virtue of that it is clear that the Medical Assessor turned his mind to whether an assessment under Table 13-3 was warranted.

FINDINGS AND REASONS

The procedures on appeal are contained in s 328 of the 1998 Act. The appeal is to be by way of review of the original medical assessment but the review is limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
In Campbelltown City Council v Vegan [2006] NSWCA 284 the Court of Appeal held that the Appeal Panel is obliged to give reasons.
The Appeal Panel considers it was open to the Medical Assessor to conclude, based on the symptoms the appellant experienced and the appellant’s presentation at examination with the Medical Assessor, that the appellant had cerebellar signs rather than vestibular signs. Cerebellar signs can be due to various metabolic disorders. These include disorders arising from alcohol consumption.
Although the physical signs point to a cerebellar abnormality rather than a vestibular cause for ataxia, and the most usual metabolic cause of cerebellar abnormality is excessive alcohol consumption, the Panel acknowledges that the underlying cause has not been definitively determined in this case. Other causes of cerebellar ataxia include inherited disorders, some vitamin deficiencies and endocrine disorders. Some rarer forms of migraine are also associated with cerebellar ataxia.

Moreover, Dr O’Sullivan obtained the history that the appellant drinks minimal alcohol in 2019, whereas the history the Medical Assessor obtained that the appellant drank moderate alcohol was obtained far more recently. The Medical Assessor was entitled to rely upon the history he obtained.
In any event, as Medical Assessor Mellick explained in the MAC the appellant did not fulfil the criteria stipulated within paragraph 5.9 of the Guidelines to enable his impairment of his nervous system to be assessed by reference to Table 13-5, or Table 13-8 of AMA5. Further, and for completeness, the Appeal Panel notes that by virtue of the appellant not meeting the criteria specified within paragraph 5.9 of the Guidelines, Tables 13-4, 13-6 and 13-7 also could not be applied.
Paragraph 5.9 of the Guidelines reads as follows:
“In assessing disturbances of mental status and integrative functioning; and emotional or behavioural disturbances; disturbances in the level of consciousness and awareness; disturbances of sleep and arousal function; and disorders of communication (AMA5 sections 13.3a, 13.3c, 13.3d, 13.3e and 13.3f; pp 309-311 and 317-327), the assessor should make ratings based on clinical assessment and the results of neuropsychometric testing, where available.
For traumatic brain injury, there should be evidence of a severe impact to the head, or that the injury involved a high-energy impact.
Clinical assessment must include at least one of the following:
•       significant medically verified abnormalities in the Glasgow Coma Scale score
•       significant medically verified duration of post-traumatic amnesia
•       significant intracranial pathology on CT scan or MRI.
For traumatic brain injury, there should be evidence of a severe impact to the head, or that the injury involved a high-energy impact.
Neuropsychological testing should be conducted by a registered clinical neuropsychologist who is a member, or is eligible for membership, of the Australian Psychological Society’s College of Clinical Neuropsychology. Neuropsychological test data is to be considered in the context of the overall clinical history, examination and radiological findings, and not in isolation.”
Medical Assessor Mellick explained that the appellant was not rendered unconscious in the incident on 14 September 2016 and that there was no mention made when the appellant was assessed at hospital of disorder of consciousness or amnesia. Medical Assessor Mellick noted that MRI scans of the appellant’s brain did not reveal a brain injury.
Given that Medical Assessor Mellick’s assessment did not establish significantly medically verified abnormalities in the Glasgow Coma Scale score, or significantly medically verified duration of post-traumatic amnesia or significant intracranial pathology on CT scan or MRI, the Medical Assessor was correct to conclude the appellant did not meet the requirements for his impairment to be assessed under either Table 13-5 or Table 13-8 of AMA5, as
Dr O’Sullivan had done.
The Appeal Panel does not accept the appellant’s submission that Medical Assessor Mellick overlooked the report of Dr O’Sullivan dated 21 September 2021 or that the Medical Assessor otherwise did not dispute Dr O’Sullivan’s opinion expressed in that report. In order for Medical Assessor Mellick to have concluded that the appellant did not fulfil the criteria of paragraph 5.9 of the Guidelines, that is that there was no significantly medically verified abnormalities in the Glasgow Coma Scale score, or significantly medically verified duration of post-traumatic amnesia or significant intracranial pathology on CT scan or MRI, it was necessary for the Medical Assessor to peruse the large volume of material before him, and the Appeal Panel considers that in that circumstance it is likely that the Medical Assessor would have had regard to the report of Dr O’Sullivan.
The Appeal Panel considers that, as the respondent submitted, noting that the Medical Assessor referred in the Table 2 of the MAC to Table 13-3 of the AMA5, that the Medical Assessor did not consider the appellant fulfilled the criteria of Table 13-3 to enable a rating for impairment of his nervous system due to episodic loss of consciousness or awareness. In other words, the Appeal Panel does not agree with the appellant’s submission that Medical Assessor Mellick agreed with Dr O’Sullivan that the appellant qualified for an assessment under that table due to the episodes in which the appellant had lost consciousness which
Dr O’Sullivan concluded were attributable to the appellant’s vestibular migraines inducing vasovagal syncope.
Given that the appellant’s claim for compensation for permanent impairment from his injury relied, in part, upon that report of Dr O’Sullivan and included 5% WPI that Dr O’Sullivan had assessed the appellant had due to episodic loss of consciousness, the Medical Assessor was required to explain why the appellant’s impairment relating to his nervous system from his injury did not include a component under Table 13-3 of AMA5. The Medical Assessor by not doing so made an error. However, in the Appeal Panel’s view, that error makes no difference to the outcome in this matter.
The Appeal Panel notes that paragraph 5.9 of the Guidelines relates to assessing disturbances of mental status and integrative functioning, emotional or behavioural disturbances, disturbances in the level of consciousness or awareness, disturbances of sleep and arousal function, and disorders of communication. Those matters involve consideration of Table 13-2 and Tables 13-4 to 13-8 of AMA5. Table 13-3, as mentioned earlier, relates to impairment due to episodic loss of consciousness or awareness. That is something different from Table 13-2, which relates to impairment of consciousness and awareness. It is arguable that the reference in paragraph 5.9 of AMA5 to disturbances in the level of consciousness and awareness engages that Table 13-2, and not Table 13-3, in which case an assessment of impairment due to the nervous system arising from an injury could be done under Table 13-3 notwithstanding that the criteria stipulated in paragraph 5.9 have not been met.
In this case Dr O’Sullivan’s assessment of the appellant’s impairment under Table 13-3 was based on his conclusion that the appellant’s three episodes in which he has lost consciousness was attributable to his vestibular migraine including vasovagal syncope.
Dr O’Sullivan however did not explain how the appellant’s vestibular migraine induced vasovagal syncope.
In the Appeal Panel’s view the appellant’s diagnosis of vestibular migraine is valid. That diagnosis is essentially a diagnosis of exclusion. That is, absent other explanations for the signs and symptoms with which a patient presents, a diagnosis of vestibular migraine may be made. Response to medications specific for either treating acute migraine attacks or preventing their occurrence may strengthen the diagnosis. Mr McKellar does indeed appear to have responded to propranolol (a prophylactic) and sumatriptan (Imigran, used acutely at the onset of a migraine), as evidenced by correspondence from his treating neurologist
(Dr Shaun Watson dated 23 April 2019 and 29 October 2019). There is otherwise no conclusive formal test for vestibular migraine – although it should be noted that other forms of complicated migraine (such as hemiplegic migraine or migraine with cerebellar signs) may sometimes be confirmed with genetic testing. But in the Appeal Panel’s view, there is no persuasive evidence within the material that was presented to the Medical Assessor from which it could be cogently concluded or inferred that the appellant’s vestibular migraine triggered vasovagal syncope, that is loss of consciousness.
Accordingly, based on the evidence that was presented, the Appeal Panel considers that the Medical Assessor did not make any error by not assessing by reference to the criteria of Table 13-3 of AMA5 that the appellant had any impairment from his injury.
The Appeal Panel notes that potentially a diagnosis could also have been that the appellant had basilar (Bickerstaff) migraine, based on the fact that the appellant had experienced three episodes of loss of consciousness. In that circumstance, a rating under Table 13-3 of AMA5 could potentially have been made. In the Appeal Panel’s view that rating under Table 13-3 would have been in class 1 and at the lower end, such as 2 or 3% WPI, given that the appellant’s episodes of loss of consciousness had not affected his usual activities or was a risk to him or limited his daily activities. However, the appellant did not raise the issue of the Medical Assessor not making a diagnosis of basilar migraine and hence that is not an issue of which the Appeal Panel can deal.[1] The Appeal Panel merely notes this for the sake of the completeness.
[1] Queanbeyan Racing Club Ltd v Burton [2021] NSWCA 304 at [46]; Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v Taane & Ors [2024] NSWSC 54 at [67].
For these reasons, the Appeal Panel has determined that the MAC issued on
11 October 2023 should be confirmed.

[2024] NSWPICMP 107

28 February 2024